Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Did President Donald Trump order SNAP contingency funds withheld during the 2018–2019 shutdown?
Executive summary
President Trump and his administration did withhold full SNAP (food stamp) payments during the 2025 government shutdown, initially saying they would pause or only partially fund November benefits and resisting use of USDA contingency funds; federal courts ordered the administration to use available emergency reserves of about $4.6 billion to pay full November benefits while the administration appealed [1] [2]. The administration argued contingency or other USDA funds were not legally available for regular SNAP benefits and sought Supreme Court relief; critics said that position contradicted past practice and the statutory purpose of the contingency reserve [3] [4].
1. What happened: the administration paused or limited SNAP payments
In early November, the USDA froze or announced it would not distribute full SNAP funding for November because of the shutdown; the administration said it would initially pay only partial benefits (around 50–65% in some filings and statements) or pause payments pending a resolution of appropriations, prompting litigation and state-level scramble to cover shortfalls [5] [6] [1].
2. Legal fights: judges ordered use of emergency reserves; administration appealed
Multiple federal judges ruled that the administration must use an emergency contingency fund—identified in reporting as containing roughly $4.6 billion—to pay November SNAP benefits and gave leeway to tap other funds to make full payments, and the administration appealed these orders to higher courts and the Supreme Court [1] [2] [7].
3. Trump’s public statements and policy posture
President Trump publicly suggested withholding SNAP entirely until Congress reopened the government—posting that benefits “will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government”—and his team told courts they planned partial payments while disputing legal authority to use certain USDA-held funds [8] [9].
4. Administration legal argument: contingency/other funds not available
The administration contended in court filings that some USDA funds—largely tariff revenues or other program funds—could not legally be reprogrammed to cover regular SNAP benefits, and therefore it could not or would not use all available balances to fully fund November [3] [9]. Agriculture officials publicly argued there were not “just pots” of money to draw from and raised logistical challenges about partial-payment calculations [10] [5].
5. Counterarguments and prior practice: critics say this contradicts precedent
Democrats, legal challengers, and analysts pointed to prior practice and statutory design: SNAP maintains contingency reserves intended for emergencies and past guidance and GAO findings indicated such reserves have been used to cover regular benefits in funding gaps; critics invoked the Impoundment Control Act and said the administration’s withholding was unlawful [4] [11] [3].
6. Immediate human impact and state responses
The pause and litigation left roughly 42 million Americans facing uncertainty over benefits; some states began processing full payments using state funds or moved to cover shortfalls, while charities and food banks braced for increased need. Judges noted the likely harm to recipients and ordered quick compliance [6] [12] [1].
7. What the courts and Supreme Court did next
Courts repeatedly ordered the administration to fund SNAP for November using contingency reserves; the administration sought emergency relief from higher courts and the Supreme Court to block lower-court orders, and the Supreme Court temporarily blocked at least one lower-court order in ongoing litigation over the issue [13] [7] [6].
8. How to read competing motives and implications
Supporters of the administration framed the stance as a legal and fiscal constraint—a claim of limited reprogramming authority and logistical difficulty [10] [9]. Opponents framed it as a political tactic to pressure Democrats during budget talks and as potential violation of spending law and precedent intended to protect low-income recipients [11] [3]. Both positions cite law and precedent; courts became the arbiter while the shutdown continued [1] [7].
9. Limitations of reporting and unanswered questions
Available sources document the administration’s action to limit or pause benefits, the existence of the contingency fund (~$4.6 billion), court orders to use it, and high-profile appeals [1] [2] [4]. Available sources do not mention the internal White House deliberations that led to the decision beyond public statements, nor do they provide a full accounting of every USDA funding line the administration considered or rejected beyond the cited court filings (not found in current reporting).
Bottom line: reporting shows the Trump administration attempted to withhold or partially fund November SNAP payments during the shutdown, citing legal and logistical constraints, while courts ordered use of contingency reserves and the administration appealed—producing a sharp legal and political clash centered on whether contingency and other USDA funds could lawfully cover regular SNAP benefits [1] [4].